Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

Exactly,why on earth should cause of death have any bearing whatsoever on why no one in all of the North American hinterlands has stumbled onto the remains (bones,gutpile or otherwise) of a Hairy Biped of Unusual Size??

Apparently someone did unless you think all "anecdotes" are lies.

An animal that size would probably have no predators (the young might). They'd be likely to die of old age and hole up in a place where they'd be hard to find.

 

[kitakaze]

I found no animal remains of any kind in the forest.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_senson/2345143542/

"This was one of at least 20 perfect skulls I tripped over in the forest. I don't know what animal it is from."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eileenkuhnmann/171542396/

- Dead moose in the forest.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jev/1474237570/

- Goat skull in the forest.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zkebonytower/359317220/

- Dead deer in the forest.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdemonbreun/2442022436/

- Another dead deer in the forest.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnestadphotography/710778074/

- Sheep skeleton in the forest.

Please stop faulty arguments for the lack of Bigfoot bodies. All these animals were found in the forest. Lu, arguments for incredulity are logical fallacies. You not finding dead animals in the forest does not mean they are not very often found. You have zero excuse for the absense of a Bigfoot specimen.

 

[desertgal]

Again, I was looking for remains of my horses that had died of a disease the year before. I found some of the mare's vertebrae by the skid road where a friend on horseback dragged and left her, her skull in a gully. That's all I could find of a 15 hand horse. The filly's jaw had been towed a quarter mile or so onto talus, i.e. basaltic rocks. That's all I found of her. These were not wild animals. If I hadn't been looking for them I would have missed them. The mare's vertebrae were covered in algae and blended in. If I'd crossed the talus in another place I'd have missed the filly's jawbone.

I saw the deer skeleton by Hwy 14 when I was walking into Stevenson. It wasn't in the woods. It had been hit by a car (I assume). I found one deer jaw on the talus where I found the filly's jaw and two coyotes that had been trapped in a clearing on my land.

In the woods I found 0. I did a lot of mushrooming so I poked under the club moss and got well away from the old skid roads. I climbed over rotting logs and checked around boulders. Nothing. Am I making myself clear enough? I found no animal remains of any kind in the forest.

There's a segment of an MQ show where they show the disintegration of a deer in a week, and that was without the scavengers.

You said previously:

I spent many hours mushrooming, riding, climbing and just plain wandering over terrain that had no trails. I may have walked where no human had walked before me.

I found a deer jawbone, skeletons of trapped coyotes and few remains of two of my horses that died of a mysterious disease.

Which reads as if you discovered the remains in the woods. So, perhaps, I could be forgiven my misunderstanding without an injection of sarcasm? One can only go by what you write.

Your statement that animal remains are rarely discovered in the forest is unsubstantiated by any concrete proof. Animal remains are often discovered in the woods. I think any dedicated hunter/hiker/camper would support that.

 

[kitakaze]

Apparently someone did unless you think all "anecdotes" are lies.

Please do not pollute a discussion regarding reliable evidence and proof with vague references to Bigfoot tales ie, anecdotes.

An animal that size would probably have no predators (the young might). They'd be likely to die of old age and hole up in a place where they'd be hard to find.

It's not your English writing we should be wondering about but it might be your comprehension. Every large mammal on the continent you live gets shot. Every large mammal on the continent you live gets hit by automobiles. Every large mammal on the continent you live gets killed in accidents, fires, floods, falls. Every large mammal on the continent you live gets diseases and die suddenly.

All these conditions apply to humans and intelligence is no reliable protection.

An animal you tell us lives across the continent will many times over succumb to one of these conditions and be found by humans. Your suggestion otherwise is a mock of rational thinking. I'm sorry but your arguments are so full of contradictions, logical fallacies, and distortions of fact that one can not help but desire better critical thinking from proponents of Bigfoot.

 

[Mad Hom]

Or that member darkwing has been up close to Bigfoots many times and has even seen a group of them crossing a field before his very eyes...

I pretty much dismiss anyone who claims MULTIPLE encounters out of hand for no other reason other than the fact that if you see it once without a camera in your hand...fine...but twice?? Three times??? C'mon people phones have flipping cameras on them nowadays...snap a picture already would ya!?!?

80 trips into the sticks and the two times you're lucky enough to experience a school..or gaggle or whatever they travel in...of Bigfeetsus..D'oh!!?!?...you either didn't have the foresight to load the camera or chargge it or...hell..bring it in the first damn place.

I'm sorry but that's entry level BS right there...detectable by even the most unsophisticated of Bull-***** detectors.

 

[kitakaze]

80 trips into the sticks and the two times you're lucky enough to experience a school..or gaggle or whatever they travel in...of Bigfeetsus..D'oh!!?!?

A myth of Bigfoots is what I think we've reached a consensus on.

 

[Mad Hom]

A myth of Bigfoots is what I think we've reached a consensus on.

Kit you are aware sir that there are hundreds of people from sea to shining sea who would dispute that my friend.

People who can find Bigfeetsus at will yet either can't seem to focus their cameras or don't own cameras at all.

People who see holes in the mud and think...."hey that kind of looks like an arse print doesn't it?"

People who don't see the fact that not a single shred of genetic Hairy Biped evidence has EVER been gleaned from anywhere EVER in 400 years is even remotely problematic.

People who don't think that a hairy whatzit calmly strolling across a sandy creek bed without even the faintest sense of fear doesn't look exactly like a guy in a silly suit.

People who think that proof submitted by known hoaxers (Freeman, Marx, Crook et al) should be considered perfectly viable.

People who want so desperately for The Boss of the Woods to be really for real.

What say you sir to these fine salt o'the earth Americans??

 

[kitakaze]

People who don't think that a hairy whatzit calmly strolling across a sandy creek bed without even the faintest sense of fear doesn't look exactly like a guy in a silly suit.

Just imagine if Patty was real. That's an example of what's been dodging the bullet sea to sea. That fat back thing. Forget the ninja foot that backflips behind a tree in the blink of an eye. There is the escape action on film.

Patty:

"This water's great. I need a bath. Oh my word. Men on horses. Those are men on horses. No sir, I don't like the look of th- Aaaand there they go, the horses are up. On our way then, deary. We won't be having anything to do with those types today, no we won't. Aaaaalrighty, off we... uh go. Left, right, left, right, deary. That's the way. Let's just have a peek and see what the man things are d- Oh dear me. It's ah... running at me with a shiney thing in its hand. Not good, deary. Not good, indeed. Right then, on our way. Left, right, left, right..."

What say you sir to these fine salt o'the earth Americans??

Bigfooting is better in Canada.

 

[Mad Hom]

Apparently someone did unless you think all "anecdotes" are lies.

So someone has found a dead Bigfeetsus?? Is that your claim?

Probably no DNA obtained from this find either huh?

An animal that size would probably have no predators (the young might). They'd be likely to die of old age and hole up in a place where they'd be hard to find.

Ok for S&G let's allow for this Bigfeetsus graveyard theory...what about accidental deaths?

Hairy Bipeds don't trip and fall into ravines possibly breaking limbs making it unable to hole up anywhere? They don't get caught in forest fires?? They've never had anything fall on them like say a large tree limb? Not a one has ever starved to death,dying right where it fell over,weakened to the point that it was unable to make it to the death spot??

Any drownings?? Deaths by mudslide? Not one has ever lost a fight with huge Grizzly and died of it's wounds?? Hell what about a fight between two Bigfeetsus...couldn't that result in death?

No roadkills? No Bigfeetsus succumbing to the elements?? Not one diseased individual has ever just collapsed and died where it layed?? and none of this has ever happened anywhere near areas travelled by hikers,bikers,4WD enthusiasts,campers,birdwatchers,forest rangers or crazy old mountain hermits???

They all live to the ripe old age of 100 and than simply wander off to the Hairy Biped graveyard never to be seen again??

Is this your contention Lu??

 

[Mad Hom]

Just imagine if Patty was real. That's an example of what's been dodging the bullet sea to sea. That fat back thing. Forget the ninja foot that backflips behind a tree in the blink of an eye. There is the escape action on film.

Patty:

"This water's great. I need a bath. Oh my word. Men on horses. Those are men on horses. No sir, I don't like the look of th- Aaaand there they go, the horse are up. On our way then, deary. We won't be having anything to do with those types today, no we won't. Aaaaalrighty, off we... uh go. Left, right, left, right, deary. That's the way. Let's just have a peek and see what the man things are d- Oh dear me. It's ah... running at me with a shiney thing in its hand. Not good, deary. Not good, indeed. Right then, on our way. Left, right, left, right..."

Bigfooting is better in Canada.

LOL...now that made me chuckle Kit....anyway...yes Bigfeetsus are apparently all about the ooga booga shenanigans until a camera comes into play than it's time to slowly stroll away...or to exude pheramones that render it out of focus to everything but the naked eye.

 

[William Parcher]

Yes, I missed that little thread in 2005, probably because I was embroiled here. Over a year ago I left BFF. In case you didn't notice, I wasn't here either. So just why should I have known it again? Of course it was a "Pattycakes" who found the error, but never mind that.

You present yourself as a Bigfoot researcher with a keen interest in the PGF. I expected you to follow conversations and information about the PGF on BFF even if you weren't posting there. It's what I do. Maybe you should consider me a great source because I find things that you don't. We consistently see examples showing that PGF skeptics can be more knowledgeable about the film and story than some of its strongest supporters. Two of the richest sources for PGF information are JREF and BFF. Ignore them at your own peril.

I don't think Roger Knights will mind if I quote him:

"He stated in response to one of the follow-up questions that he and his crew had gone up and down Bluff Creek regularly that summer. (IOW, if the tracks had been laid down weeks before the filming, as BH alleged, it's unlikely they'd have been missed multiple times.)"

We have discussed this at length. I gave reasonable explanations for why Laverty would not necessarily see (hoax) tracks laid down weeks before Oct. 20. I also pointed out that he had NEVER seen BF tracks in his years of working the Bluff Creek watershed. Yet, Bigfooters were coming into this area and finding tracks without any problem. Laverty worked there full-time and never saw anything. Visiting Bigfooters come in for a few days and Bingo. Can you find any stories about Bigfooters going to the Bluff Creek area and NOT finding tracks? Did these Classic Bigfooters carry lucky charms, or were they possibly track hoaxers?

I like the way Roger the pseudo-intellectual wannabe actually checks things out while you guys are doing what exactly?

This is stupid. This thread presents excellent fact-finding and analysis done by skeptics.

Since they were in the area and went looking in response to the news it needent have been on a workday. It's not that important, except to people who are trying to find anything they can to show this was a complicated hoax.

Maybe the only reason Laverty found the tracks at all is because he learned that some guys had filmed a BF and there were tracks to be seen at the site. Even still (as I said before in this thread), from his truck on the logging road, he should not have seen the Patty tracks themselves. At best, riding in the truck, he would have only seen an array of hoofprints. Remember that the testimony of Titmus and P&G is that her tracks just suddenly appeared on the far side of the creek with no approach tracks to be found.

We are all left to scratch our heads wondering why Laverty would find the Patty walk scene the day he returned to work, yet it took expert tracker Titmus days to find them even after watching the film and having access to Patterson for specific directions.

We can also wonder why Laverty reported seeing no sign of P&G being in this area until Oct. 23. Gimlin said they were camped out there for something like a week searching for Bigfoot. Laverty never reported seeing them, their truck, a campsite, horses or hoofprints.

But this is all rehashing of previous discussions here. You have a strong history of provoking skeptics to repeat themselves over and over and over and over...

Do you actually think that maybe on the third attempt at "no dead bears" the skeptics will cave in and agree with you? No? Well try again next year, eh?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Apparently someone did unless you think all "anecdotes" are lies.

An animal that size would probably have no predators (the young might). They'd be likely to die of old age and hole up in a place where they'd be hard to find.

Not all "lies" per se but simply wrong?

It could also be said that the majority of BF hunters are the David Vincents of the world and the reason they cant convince the "skeptics" is because when BF "die" they turn red and incinerate and everything they touch goes with them.

I think if we all put our minds together, we can build a TV show around that premise.

 

[William Parcher]

There is the escape action on film.

Patty:

"This water's great. I need a bath. Oh my word. Men on horses. Those are men on horses. No sir, I don't like the look of th- Aaaand there they go, the horses are up. On our way then, deary. We won't be having anything to do with those types today, no we won't. Aaaaalrighty, off we... uh go. Left, right, left, right, deary. That's the way. Let's just have a peek and see what the man things are d- Oh dear me. It's ah... running at me with a shiney thing in its hand. Not good, deary. Not good, indeed. Right then, on our way. Left, right, left, right..."

That was funny.

The PGF and encounter contradicts a common assertion about filming Bigfoot. You need to be ultra-fast with a camera or you will get nothing. It is also not recommended to actively pursue a Bigfoot at close range, as Roger did with much success and no injury.

If you watch the first frames where Patty is filmed, you see that fast camera operation wasn't that critical. If the first 10 seconds of filming didn't happen, we would still have most of what the supporters use anyway. IOW, if Roger had pushed the shutter 10 secs later than he did, it would still be regarded as one of the best pieces of evidence for Bigfoot.

Additionally, you don't have to keep filming for the entire time that BF is right in front of you. Roger said that he never stopped filming, but the PGF itself shows distinct scene breaks that are evidence of either editing (removed frames) or camera shut-down. Nowadays, most people regard missing footage or camera stops in the middle of close and prolonged encounter footage as being a huge red flag of hoaxing. It should be. But Patterson gets a pass on that.

If it's brought up about the PGF, say little, say nothing, or change the subject.

 

[kitakaze]

That was funny.

I really enjoyed the one you did a number of months ago where Patty is choked she is being seen and followed by men. My memory of it now is hazy but I was chuckling to myself and thinking of that when I wrote Patty's escape action

The PGF and encounter contradicts a common assertion about filming Bigfoot. You need to be ultra-fast with a camera or you will get nothing. It is also not recommended to actively pursue a Bigfoot at close range, as Roger did with much success and no injury.

If we are to believe this is how a typical Bigfoot will react, or even just the way a Mommyfoot will react, then there never would have been a mystery to begin with. Nevertheless, let's just for a moment imagine Patty trying to run. I don't think the hair bags would have stayed on three steps.

If you watch the first frames where Patty is filmed, you see that fast camera operation wasn't that critical. If the first 10 seconds of filming didn't happen, we would still have most of what the supporters use anyway. IOW, if Roger had pushed the shutter 10 secs later than he did, it would still be regarded as one of the best pieces of evidence for Bigfoot.

Personally, every time I watch the beginning moments of the PGF I have a hard time not seeing Roger shake the camera like an idiot.

Additionally, you don't have to keep filming for the entire time that BF is right in front of you. Roger said that he never stopped filming, but the PGF itself shows distinct scene breaks that are evidence of either editing (removed frames) or camera shut-down. Nowadays, most people regard missing footage or camera stops in the middle of close and prolonged encounter footage as being a huge red flag of hoaxing. It should be. But Patterson gets a pass on that.

If it's brought up about the PGF, say little, say nothing, or change the subject.

Do like nightscream: say "irrelevant" and demand to see the suit.

 

[William Parcher]

I really enjoyed the one you did a number of months ago where Patty is choked she is being seen and followed by men. My memory of it now is hazy but I was chuckling to myself and thinking of that when I wrote Patty's escape action.

I was laughing my ass off as I wrote it. But here I can get serious and expand upon it based on something Diogenes said. He proposed that Bigfoot may really look like a guy in a cheap fur suit. That isn't funny.

Bigfoot (Patty) may show the evolutionary adaptation of mimicry. You know, like how a stick insect doesn't get eaten by birds because it looks just like a stick. Evolution produced a Bigfoot that looks like a human in a big fur suit. Humans won't try to kill it because they think they are killing some weird guy. It might even be one of their friends or relatives.

This will also work to prevent scientific confirmation (which could be the first step towards extinction of your species) by way of cameras. When the images are presented to the human species, the most able individuals will declare it a guy in a suit. The best trackers, gunners and even funding agencies will not pursue it.

If you think this is a stupid or impossible adaptation, just look at the situation at hand. The humans don't kill you, they don't confirm your existence, and you get to go on living in those beautiful and bountiful forests. You don't even have to run when they whip out cameras and/or guns. It's a sweet deal, and Darwin explained it nicely.

Funky folds on your thighs, some donut bulges here and there, phony-looking rock hard breasts, and a human gait will keep you and your species alive. Evolution works!

 

[William Parcher]

I swear that "georgerm" guy has got to be the craziest person posting right now on BFF. He took this spot from "urbanshaman" (seems to be gone now) and "night's cream".

The video is unusual. I see a man in a white shirt yelling and chasing a "BF", then it looks like he a tackled from behind by another "BF".

The video he is talking about.

More george garbage here.


This made me LOL...

More like a bigfoot granny carrying some sod on her back...

But georgerm is still doing his research...

Stop and start the video and you will see a little head and dark eyes on the sod on mamma's back!

 

[William Parcher]

It's hard to type while you are laughing your ass off, but I'll give it a try here.

Georgerm should try a different approach for supporting the authenticity of the Sod Granny Bigfoot video. A similar approach has been used for the PGF.

Try the following, georgerm....


I believe that the "Sod Granny Bigfoot" video is real because it looks fake. A hoaxer would not go to all that effort to create something that looks like a feeble old thing trudging along with sod on its back. Besides that, why would anyone put eyeballs on the piece of sod? Nobody would ever believe that. It's a waste of time, effort and money. That is why I'm convinced that we are seeing a real Bigfoot carrying a baby in this video.

 

[kitakaze]

Bigfoot (Patty) may show the evolutionary adaptation of mimicry. You know, like how a stick insect doesn't get eaten by birds because it looks just like a stick. Evolution produced a Bigfoot that looks like a human in a big fur suit. Humans won't try to kill it because they think they are killing some weird guy. It might even be one of their friends or relatives.

(snip)

Touche.

Now think of the implications of this. This is not some throw away Mira Sorvino movie. All those bad youtube Bigfoot videos? Those are good youtube Bigfoot videos. That one that looks like a kid with the baggy jeans and a hoody taking a leak in the forest? Bigfoot taking a leak. That gorilla suit marathon photo Sweaty loves? That's right. Migration.

Notify the orgs, we have a breakthrough.

 

[LAL]

Please stop faulty arguments for the lack of Bigfoot bodies. All these animals were found in the forest. Lu, arguments for incredulity are logical fallacies. You not finding dead animals in the forest does not mean they are not very often found. You have zero excuse for the absense of a Bigfoot specimen.

I was not in an area that had moose or goats. It was much like BC, so I'd think you'd know what it's like. I'm confining my argument to terrain I knew about in an area that had many sightings and some physical evidence. It may have had more large scavengers than some of these other areas. Wet conditions do their part, too.

That no bodies were found does not surprise me in the least.

Funny, I was just thinking about arguments from incredulity. It seems that's what I see most on this board, and not on the proponents side.

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about the PGF?

 

[GT/CS]

I was laughing my ass off as I wrote it. But here I can get serious and expand upon it based on something Diogenes said. He proposed that Bigfoot may really look like a guy in a cheap fur suit. That isn't funny.

Bigfoot (Patty) may show the evolutionary adaptation of mimicry. You know, like how a stick insect doesn't get eaten by birds because it looks just like a stick. Evolution produced a Bigfoot that looks like a human in a big fur suit. Humans won't try to kill it because they think they are killing some weird guy. It might even be one of their friends or relatives.

This will also work to prevent scientific confirmation (which could be the first step towards extinction of your species) by way of cameras. When the images are presented to the human species, the most able individuals will declare it a guy in a suit. The best trackers, gunners and even funding agencies will not pursue it.

If you think this is a stupid or impossible adaptation, just look at the situation at hand. The humans don't kill you, they don't confirm your existence, and you get to go on living in those beautiful and bountiful forests. You don't even have to run when they whip out cameras and/or guns. It's a sweet deal, and Darwin explained it nicely.

Funky folds on your thighs, some donut bulges here and there, phony-looking rock hard breasts, and a human gait will keep you and your species alive. Evolution works!

That would explain the wrist band, too!