Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[GT/CS]

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?

IOW, I'm getting the tar beat out of me and I refuse to admit I'm wrong so let's change the subject.

Good idea.

 

[kitakaze]

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".

Some observations from WP's links:

1) I think it would be a fun social experiment to take random vacation videos on youtube and label them as Bigfoot sightings just to see what George pulls out of the hat.

2) It seems lost on George that the people who made that video took the 'grassman' concept literally and covered their suit with grass.

3) You know your footer status is pretty droopy when Bill Green gives you the brush off.

 

[Aepervius]

And I lived in a county that only has two traffic lights (there were none then). There were cougars, bear, coyote, eagles, vultures..........all these animals scavenge. The large scavengers do their work, then the little ones down to the microbes finish the job.

In a more or less natural ecosystem, bodies don't last long, and in the deep woods where people don't go there's no one around to find them.

But that don't happen instantly, and even after the scavenger are finished, there are BONES. Which would be mistaken for human/ape or whatever bones and most probably be taken to the police.

And by the way, there are also scavenger in france, did you miss the part "time only half eaten bones were found". They are not big scavenger, but a lot of small one. Even to the point you find the rest scattered everywhere. Big carnivore are not the only scavenger.

 

[kitakaze]

I was not in an area that had moose or goats.

What relevance does the type of medium to large mammals dead in forest have anything to do the utter lack of a Bigfoot specimen?

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.

You yourself said that Bigfoots may inhabit virtually all marketable timber in the U.S.. I have a chart posted of all non-federal forest land in the U.S. whenever you decide to specify where that is.

Now...

1) You say it is unusual to find dead animal bodies, I show you dead animal bodies (the first one being in PNW forest).

2) You complain about whether the cause of death was natural and when asked about the relevance say that Bigfoot is a top predator despite the fact that all large mammals in North America succumb to all manner of deaths and are found.

3) You say you were talking about forest and I show you a heap of dead animals in forests.

4) Now you are further moving the goal posts by saying that you are confining your arguments to North Carolina and that it is much like BC.

I see I now will have to provide a further post showing images of dead animals in North Carolina forest with some BC ones to boot. On top of this I will look for North Carolina BF sighting reports which refer to areas such as roads, highways, and human habitation. I have, as you know, already posted an image of a dead bear in North Carolina apparently struck by a vehicle.

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

Why? You have offered no reasonable explanation for why no Bigfoot bodies have been found and any excuses you have tossed out have been incinerated.

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.

You arguing that Bigfoot bodies are not found because finding animal bodies is unusual and supporting it by your own personal lack of experience finding bodies in forested areas when this is not at all uncommon is a typical argument from incredulity and a logical fallacy.

No type specimen existing for a huge mammal that we are told lives across the continent and often approaches human inhabited areas being an absurd insult to rational thinking is not an argument from incredulity. It is not personal and based on my limited experiences. It is what we should absolutely expect based on our collective testable knowledge.

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

You yourself frequently use this thread as a platform to discuss arguments regarding the general case for the existence of Bigfoot. You consistently make lengthy posts on the subject without reference to the PGF. You know as well as I that we have done so without issue. Discussions regarding specific pieces of evidence are another matter.

You are simply trying to slip out of a discussion where your arguments are getting thoroughly and completely trounced. If you would do the right thing you would acknowledge their faulty nature and abandon them.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

Strawman ..
There are any number of possibilities besides ' all lies ' ..
However in this case, my guess would be ' lie ', or the delusion of someone who is mentally ill ..

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.

If they were more likely to die of old age, then it would also be more likely there would be huge numbers of them; making it more likely still, there would be a verifiable sighting or a smackdown with the leading edge of a Peterbuilt..

 

[captain koolaid]

An animal that size would probably have no predators...

Think again. You know it's the answer...

 

[tyr_13]

Just thought of another huge hole in the, 'no bodies being found is reasonable' argument. What would a bigfoot body look like decomposing?

A HUMAN!!!

People tend to investigate when they find things that look like dead people. It happens enough with pieces of bear bones people think are human remains.

 

[Mad Hom]

This georgern goof is worth his weight in gold in terms of ridiculous Hairy Biped takes....a few of his pearls of wisdom from the Ohio Grasswoman video

Red, I feel the same way. I'm gullible for a good BF costume. I can't figure out how these clowns pull off stuff like this. The author's profile has no BF films and just a bunch of drunk pranks. He may have been pranking and a real BF came waddleing by.

I just love it when a Bigfoot Apologist goes to the "hoaxers can find Bigfeets to" card...yeah they were out filming their version of Jackass the Movie when lo and behold....a Bigfeetsus happened to just...show up....LOL ok george whatever helps you get through your day I guess......classic.

Also...he says he's gullible for a GOOD BF costume....geez George it would seem your gullible for...ANY BF costume actually.

After looking at it several times, she began to look like a baby was on her back, and she has one under her left arm which also explains why she is so slow.

But George what about the pig she's carrying? Can't you see that to? Clearly she planned on hurling that pig at the cameraman....unfortunately that event didn't make the film.

In reference to the Salt Fork Hosacks Cave video georgerm says...

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".

LOL...georgerm is clearly under the influence of hallucinogenic medication...I watched the video and there is clearly no discernable "yelling" nor can I make out anything resembling a "white" shirt nor could I see this Sasquatch scrum that george sees. Obviously George's doctors should cutback on his dosage.

His take on the New Hampshire photo:

The posts are so technical it's hard to follow. Is the first part fuzzy, since the auto focus picked up the trees in the fore ground making the background where the BF is out of focus? On the other hand, the low quality of the video makes a faked video more real. I'm a sucker for vidoes like this. I want to believe.

That last sentence kind of speaks volumes about George don't ya think?

The nose of the BF look wider and pointed and not what I expected. Patty in the Patterson film has a blunt nose. I suppose there can be a wide variety of BF faces. This face look scary.

Sure George why not...I mean look at the wide variety in Tiger faces or Baboons...hell I've even seen Baboons that have huge ears and tusks...why the hell not...anything is possible with Bigfeetsus.

This georgerm guy is gold I tell ya...comedy gold. By the way....billgreen2006...um..yeah..what's going on with that guy?? To me it would seem that he has elected to spend what precious computer time the group home organizers allow him...posting illuminating takes like this at BFF...

hey everyone i just finished watching this new possible filmfootage of a sasquatch 2 times already. it definetly needs more enhandsments etc done to it. updates as occure indeedy. good evening bill green there is something moveing in this filmfootage but hmm like i said above more research needs to be done.

Wow with guys like Bill and George on the case I can't imagine this thing will stay undiscovered for much longer.

 

[LAL]

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.

I'm sorry if I did not make it clear that the coyotes had been trapped and were in the open, what talus is and that the horses were American Standardbreds. There are areas in forests that do not have trees. The whole scenario is rather painful for me and I was trying not to dwell on it - I've told the story before. I'm sorry if I sounded sarcastic; I think I was a little exasperated.

I doubt the deer died of natural causes. Ask any hunter.

Grover Krantz questioned people who were frequently in the woods over a period of ten years about finding remains of bears that had died of natural causes. How many? None.

I hope we don't have to go over roadkill again. I had a bird fly into my grill several decades ago and yesterday I hit a cat square because it was down and struggling and I had a split second to decide if I should put it out of its misery or not. That's the extent of me being responsible for roadkills. If it had been an 8' bipedal ape, I'm certain I would have hit the brake instead of the animal, given my choice, because I drive a Ford Escort.

Confirmation might come via Mack truck in Grant's pass. Who knows?

All these "There should be by now" arguments don't impress me. A lost city has been discovered in Russia. How do you lose a whole city? Nevertheless, it's now been found. Things are found when they're found. Just who sets the time for when they "should be" found?

 

[tyr_13]

We aren't in Russia. Also, bigfoot would be like if hundreds of people had seen the city but many hours of research and searching failed to locate it again over several decades.

 

[drapier]

I doubt the deer died of natural causes. Ask any hunter.

Grover Krantz questioned people who were frequently in the woods over a period of ten years about finding remains of bears that had died of natural causes. How many? None.

Why the emphasis on natural causes? Didn't you just recently write that there are reports of Bigfeet being shot?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

We aren't in Russia. Also, bigfoot would be like if hundreds of people had seen the city but many hours of research and searching failed to locate it again over several decades.

Pretty simple- its called an argument based in obfuscation and irrelevancy sewn together by a thread made of straw

 

[desertgal]

I doubt the deer died of natural causes. Ask any hunter.

You said that you found only a deer jawbone. Not something that would give you any idea-doubtful or certain-of how the animal perished. As well, I don't know any hunter who would be willing to guess on how the animal died just from a jawbone.

Grover Krantz questioned people who were frequently in the woods over a period of ten years about finding remains of bears that had died of natural causes. How many? None.

That proves nothing. You're not offering information on how many people, what area of the country, and whether any of them ever found remains of bears that died of unnatural causes. For all we know, he could have asked five people-hardly representative of the entire country.

I grew up in a remote region of Nevada, at the base of the Sierra Nevada mountains. My siblings and I frequented the woods below Lake Tahoe almost daily in our childhoods, and the surrounding desert as well. As well, I've lived near Penticton, British Columbia; Waterton, Alberta, and Graeagle, California-all heavily wooded areas. We often came across the remains of animals-and, quite often, unless the animal was recently deceased, we couldn't have hazarded a guess as to whether the animal died of natural or unnatural causes. A corpse exposed to the elements isn't always going to offer an obvious clue, and deciphering whether wounds were caused by trauma before death or scavengers near or after death isn't always possible.

Yet, these people whom Grover Krantz questioned, whenever they stumbled across the remains of a bear, could always decipher an unnatural cause of death?

Sorry, but your original claim was the the remains of animals are rarely found in the woods. Now, it's the remains of animal who died from natural causes are rarely found in the woods.

Either way, respectfully, not so.

 

[RayG]

Grover Krantz questioned people who were frequently in the woods over a period of ten years about finding remains of bears that had died of natural causes. How many? None.

So, because Grover said so, you think bears that died of natural causes are never found in the wild?

Here's a chart showing the percentage of grizzly bear deaths attributed to Natural, Hunter Havest, Citizen Killing, Management Control, Accident, and Unknown causes.

The charts shows data from nine different years/areas and each of the nine show natural and/or accidental deaths.

The book describes natural death as:

Natural mortality can result from old age, intra- and interspecific killing, starvation, rock or snow avalanche, den collapse, or unknown reasons.

I'm assuming they wouldn't list the number of bears that died a natural or accidental death unless they actually found the bears and were able to determine the cause of death.

Where were these guys when Grover was making his inquiries?

RayG

 

[Astrophotographer]

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??

Don't forget about Mount St. Helens. Why didn't any bigfeet get killed by that? After all they did not have the warnings humans had but humans died there. Not a single bigfoot body showed up but a lot of dead animals did.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Lu wrote:

All these "There should be by now" arguments don't impress me. A lost city has been discovered in Russia. How do you lose a whole city? Nevertheless, it's now been found. Things are found when they're found.

Just who sets the time for when they "should be" found?

That would be William Parcher, Lu.

He's the skeptic here with the smallest mind (well, actually, he and Greg are running 'neck and neck' for that distintction)....and, according to him....time is now officially UP for all living Bigfoot creatures to have been found....across the globe.

Any living creatures still "undiscovered", forfeited their right to life when William proudly stated that Bigfoot absolutely, definitely does not exist, anywhere in the whole wide world.


It's a shame.....but that's the way it is!


BTW.....I just got back from a weekend in Whitehall, NY....and, man, there's an awful lot of wilderness out there!

It was a gas....literally....zipping along on wide-open, winding country roads....mountains on one side, farms on the other. Simply beautiful.

 

[LAL]

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

You're calling this mockfest a discussion?

I'm talking about temperate rain forests and you're showing me pictures of dead animals that don't live in temperate rain forests.

Like it or not, sightings are evidence and when they show a correlation with over 20" of rainfall, rational people might think there's something to this. These areas indisputably support a large omnivore.

The area where the PGF was filmed was adjacent to an unroaded forest over 17,000 miles square. Think about that.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

IOW, why should claims of bigfoot be treated differently than other claims with no good physical evidence?

The reason why an 'eyewitness report' of a Bigfoot can carry a different weight than an 'eyewitness report' of another type of creature comes down to one simple factor.....the plausibility of the supposed creatures.

If someone says they've seen a flying elephant, their report would carry absolutely no weight, (a 0% probability of being true) because the notion of a "flying elephant" is implausible, to begin with....before ("a priori") the report is ever investigated.


The principle is explained in this article...

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html

Quote:

First, it is important to understand that the strength of a conclusion is a function both of the quality of the evidence provided in its support, and the 'a priori' probability of the claim being supported.

The difference lies in the 'a priori' plausibility of the claims.

The notion of a flying elephant is implausible.

The notion of an upright-walking, very large primate is not implausible.
(Just ask Giganto. )

 

[LAL]

Don't forget about Mount St. Helens. Why didn't any bigfeet get killed by that? After all they did not have the warnings humans had but humans died there. Not a single bigfoot body showed up but a lot of dead animals did.

A print was found in the ash after the eruption (I don't remember the finder's name, sorry). Do you honestly think anyone's silted through all that ash and mud? Things were blown to bits. One woman's carcass was found in a tree months after the eruption.

Have you been there? Do you know what it's like? How would you know what all was killed?

 

[SweatyYeti]

The plausibility of the existence of a Bigfoot-type creature has been unwittingly admitted to by every skeptic here who has ever stated that "Patty may be a real Bigfoot", or that "Bigfoot may be a real animal". (And that includes quite a few of you.)

If someone truly thought that a supposed animal's existence was 'implausible', they would never state that the creature may exist.