Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

LAL, a anecdote is simply a story about something. I've never seen the DVD of LMS, but I do have the book on a bookshelf next to the computers. The introduction alone is filled with anecdotes, like the one where nature film producer Doug Hajicek, cameraman in tow, follows but fails to FILM immense, crisp, clear, detailed, and enormous humanlike footprints with distinct toes they supposedly found.

I know what it means, thanks. Around here it seems to have taken on a connotation of "unreliable", "inadmissable" or "false".

We've been over this before. The book was written for lay people. It is not a scientific tome.

Why wouldn't film producer Hajicek film these once in a lifetime tracks? Meldrum gives the excuse that it's the early 90's and Hajicek was "unfamiliar with sasquatch". What remote planet was Hajicek living on?

I don't know but skeptics would just dismiss them as fakes or jumping animals anyway.

The story, as I recall, was just about how Doug got interested in the phenomenon. It wasn't offered as "proof".

Meldrum dishes out further anecdotes in the introduction, from chasing around with Freeman, to the night in the bush where he's awakened by his guide to hear,

So? He's an academic with field experience. Chasing around? He examined a trackway. photographed it and made casts.

The scientific method in action? I think not. Remember, these examples are just in the introduction. Meldrum offers many more throughout the rest of the book, and if you've read it you know what I'm talking about. Dahinden, Krantz, Green, Meldrum... they all use anecdotes. Do you have a bigfoot story that isn't an anecdote?

John used information he was given, interviews and first hand experience. He's not a scientist. Neither was Dahinden. Krantz and Meldrum wrote a book each for the public on the subject, but both wrote papers for publication.

Isn't investigation part of the scientific method?

It doesn't look like Correa's going to answer my question, so I'll spill the beans. The DVD is the only documentary I know of that doesn't have a parade of witnesses.It deals with physical evidence, including film. There's a segment on the MD that has people who were there (Tom Lines, e.g.) talking about what they saw in connection with the filming.

Krantz used anecdotes probably least of all - that's why I recommend him. He included one of a hoaxer running down a hill with fake feet turned backwards to get the stride. There's an anecdote that isn't a bigfoot story.

Bryne's funniest moment, IMO, was the story of the "witness" telling of how the Venusians came down into the back yard while Peter's colleague moved around behind him and raised his hand in the sign of the bull while Peter was trying to keep a straight face.

Meldrum's papers don't use anecdotes. Have you read them?

I've read them and others. What's your point, that I should believe them because they wrote a book? Sorry, science doesn't work that way.

That wasn't my point.

 

[LAL]

Lots of other track findings in the region around Bluff Creek

Yes. I posted the list when Diogenes was trying to claim Patty was an isolated instance. Just which of those people were "Bigfooters"?

Green told of an unnamed ranger saying that if here was anything like that around there he'd have seen them. He then drove by a line of tracks without noticing them. They might have stood out because they were covered with plastic prior to casting.

 

[kitakaze]

I bothered because I got bored. I could count on this board to revive my interest and get my adrenalin flowing. It's the only one I know of where bad behavior is allowed such a free rein.

"Bad behavior" is the word Lu uses for disagreeing with her, pointing out her logical fallacies, poorly constructed arguments, and non sequitur anecdotal references. If you tell her that suggesting Bigfoot lives across the North American continent but bodies should not be expected to be found is absurd, that's "bad behaviour."

If you tell her that she's contradicting herself by telling us that Bigfoot lives only in remote areas away from roads and human inhabited areas yet refers to anecdotal sighting reports from areas of human activity then that too is "bad behaviour."

Tell us, Lu, if you give us very poor arguments about Bigfoot how may we address it in a way that is good behaviour?

It gives me a break from moderating a board where most of the posters are civil.

Just don't point out the glaring problems in someone's Bigfoot encounter stories. Then it gets real ugly.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It's the only one I know of where bad behavior is allowed such a free rein. It gives me a break from moderating a board where most of the posters are civil.

Of course they are.. They get banned if they dare point out the stupidity of outrageous claims ..

Ironic that your cheering section, Sweaty and Carchy, have managed to get themselves banned on the sites that champion your cause...

I understand why you feel you are the target of bad behavior; bad behavior being - suggesting you actually present non anecdotal evidence for the existence of a non human North American primate ...

That said, I for one, am glad you're here .

It gives us a chance to see relative newcomers to the thread , like desertgal , point out the flaws in your reasoning, and to see that people like William Parcher know more about Bigfoot lore than you do ..

 

[LAL]

WTH are you talking about? First, it was "ask any hunter", and now that scenario only works if I manage to find a hunter who shot a deer and hope that he recognizes it by the jawbone? You're not making any sense.

I think you're about to set a record for nit-picking. Since there was hunting (and poaching) in the area it may be safe to assume the deer did not die of natural causes.

I don't need to read the book. I'm not the one vaguely quoting the book.

You might find it interesting, particularly the chapters on the PGF (which is the topic).

Ah. So originally, they weren't finding dead bears who died of natural causes, and now they weren't finding any dead bears at all. Okey dokey.

The question was about finding dead bears that had died of natural causes. He mostly talked with people who made a living in the woods. I said that was my impression, not what Grover said. I'll quote him when I have time if you want.

Dead bears tend to get found soon after they get trapped or shot - that's about it.

In your opinion.

Whose else would it be? I never found any dead bears.

And that would explain the total absence of discovered Bigfoot bodies how? These animals must be absolute wizards at avoiding cars, trains, hunters, rock slides, traps, avalanches, etc.

There are reports of near collisions, the Jacko story involved a train track, the 17" tracks in the Bluff Creek area stopped appearing after flooding.......

There are stories of killings and a discovered body, just no recovered bodies.

 

[Drewbot]

I go hiking here in Michigan all the time. Michigan has a few Bigfoot sightings, hell we even had a BFRO expedition recently. I find animals all the time. Dead and Alive. As a matter of fact, Friday night I drove to my place up on the lake, and pulled into the driveway and saw a completely unidentifiable animal, it was low to the ground, big as a raccoon, but brown, and it took off fast, with an undulating weasel type gait. I was pondering the possibilities of what it could have been.

I found this on one of those hikes: http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/1/with-the-fire-hardened-tip-210802.html

I was also wondering if there are any footer estimates at how long it would take for a Bigfoot Femur, or Pelvis to degrade.

By the way, 10 minutes after my encounter, a cocker spaniel, came up to the doorwall and was trying to get in, I found the beast I had encountered earlier. Luckily he had a collar on and the phone number got him home.

 

[William Parcher]

Yes. I posted the list when Diogenes was trying to claim Patty was an isolated instance. Just which of those people were "Bigfooters"?

Green told of an unnamed ranger saying that if here was anything like that around there he'd have seen them. He then drove by a line of tracks without noticing them. They might have stood out because they were covered with plastic prior to casting.

There are names on that list that stand out from the classic era of Bigfootery. The one that is most striking is Bob Titmus. It's as if he couldn't lose when looking for BF tracks. I really am curious if he ever made any trips to the Bluff Creek area and didn't find Bigfoot tracks.

A similar situation was happening in Canada with Rene Dahinden.

I don't know how anyone could begin to verify that big list of found tracks. If somebody came out of the Bluff Creek woods back in the 50s/60s, and said they saw some BF tracks, would it get counted and end up on this list? Who was in charge of determining what were BF tracks and what were not? Are there any reports of mistakes? You know like... so and so reported 16" Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek, but these were subsequently determined to be overlaid bear tracks.

A new blog on Cryptomundo has a picture of a BF track in British Columbia.

Better add that one to the big list, eh? One wonders how many track-finding citations on that Bluff Creek list looked like this in person.

 

[LAL]

Of course they are.. They get banned if they dare point out the stupidity of outrageous claims ..

Ironic that your cheering section, Sweaty and Carchy, have managed to get themselves banned on the sites that champion your cause...

Wrong again, Greg. If you mean one board, BFF, carcharodon isn't banned. SY could have appealed but chose not to.

People get banned for attitude (Dfoot on BFF, e.g. after repeated warnings) and disregard for the guidelines. The kind of behavior I see here would not be tolerated on MABRC. We basically have one rule - keep it civil. We've banned people who've made outrageous claims.

 

[William Parcher]

I consider some of the posters on BFF to be rich sources of information, but I got tired of attacks by some of the others.

From what I could see, it looked like things got very tense for you on BFF because of your argumentative tactics and style. Probably too much hero worship on your part as well. You make gods out of some of the famous Bigfooters.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Wrong again, Greg. If you mean one board, BFF, carcharodon isn't banned. SY could have appealed but chose not to.

People get banned for attitude (Dfoot on BFF, e.g. after repeated warnings) and disregard for the guidelines. The kind of behavior I see here would not be tolerated on MABRC. We basically have one rule - keep it civil. We've banned people who've made outrageous claims.

like BM?

Exactly what is the criteria for an "outrageous" claim?

is "outrageous" defined in terms of logic/reason?, factual support? evidence? the "credibility" of the poster? popularity contest? Undefined opinion?

Technically, one could make a solid case that EVERY BF claim is "outrageous"

I'm curious how an "outrageous" claim is defined and how claim is measured against this "standard" and how uniformly it is applied. If this cannot be defined specifically then its meaningless and nothing more than giving the "illusion" of credibility

Its like the "other" organization where the investigator says "yep, sounds honest and reliable to me" and thats supposed to mean something.

 

[desertgal]

I think you're about to set a record for nit-picking. Since there was hunting (and poaching) in the area it may be safe to assume the deer did not die of natural causes.

No, I am not nitpicking. I am trying to follow your logic. You found the jawbone of a deer. You have no way of knowing, based on that, how the animal died. You can't safely assume anything. Period.

You might find it interesting, particularly the chapters on the PGF (which is the topic).

I know what the topic is, thanks.

Dead bears tend to get found soon after they get trapped or shot - that's about it.

Whose else would it be? I never found any dead bears.

Which is not representative of everyone who has hiked/camped/hunted/tracked/rangered in Columbia Gorge.

There are reports of near collisions, the Jacko story involved a train track, the 17" tracks in the Bluff Creek area stopped appearing after flooding.......

There are stories of killings and a discovered body, just no recovered bodies.

Anecdotal evidence does not explain the total absence of discovered or recovered Bigfoot bodies.

 

[LAL]

"Bad behavior" is the word Lu uses for disagreeing with her, pointing out her logical fallacies, poorly constructed arguments, and non sequitur anecdotal references. If you tell her that suggesting Bigfoot lives across the North American continent but bodies should not be expected to be found is absurd, that's "bad behaviour."

No, it's the mockery and attempted put-downs of people with a different POV. I'm always amazed at how you seem to think you know what I think better than I do.

There's no contradiction about animals living in remote areas and venturing into inhabited areas, especially if pressed, such as in the winter and spring of '69 in the Columbia Gorge.

I don't think they're getting garlic at the door, IWO.

The spitwads and rolicking rudeness that goes on here isn't tolerated on boards where posters are expected to behave like grown-ups. I'm not suggesting this change here since it sometimes gets funny, but it's not conducive to good debate.

There's no contraction about dead animal finds either. In areas that are lacking large scavengers there may be more carcasses lying around - and more people to find them.
This certainly wasn't true where I lived. The county was 86% national forest with a popuation of only 10.000 last time I checked, mostly along the river in very small, scattered towns.

Skamania County not only had sightings, it had physical evidence to back them up and investigations by trained law enforcement officers. This happened in The Dalles, too, with a trackway in snow crossing a farmers field. I don't know if this was related to the trailer park sightings and other events, but it was at least in the same general area. To my knowlege, those pictures have never been published.

New species are being discovered in the "Lost World", old ones are rediscovered in areas where they were thought to be extinct and a new ant was recently found that has only been around for 120 million years. If we think we know everything, we have aother think coming.

 

[chillzero]

Let's cool off the discussion a little please. Remember the MA, and do not resort to attacking each other. Let's keep it civil, and on topic, and also let's not start off topic arguments about other boards.

All posts after this point need to be civil, and on the topic of Bigfoot - nothing else.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Drewbot]

I can't find any videos of Bigfoot throwing Pigs, but I did find this video of the Incredible Hulk tossing a Grizzly Bear.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ecd61f7cad

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, who determines that a reported bigfoot track is actually a bigfoot track?

How do they make this determination?

What are they comparing to as a standard?

How did they become qualified to identify a bigfoot track as genuine?

 

[William Parcher]

Chillzero, if JREF created a subforum for Bigfoot, I'd be more inclined to create new threads when the subject veers away from the PGF (but is still related to Bigfoot).

 

[LAL]

I've had the pleasure of meeting Peter Byrne in person. He knew both men (Patterson and Gimlin) personally and frankly didn't think they were smart enough to pull off a hoax like that.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Adding to what I wrote late last night.....to captain koolaid...

If Patty is so obviously a "suit", Dino-Brains....do you think you would be able to replicate just ONE small aspect of her obvious "suit"?

Not the whole obvious suit.....just one small, obvious part of it.

....I had one particular thing in mind, regarding Patty's "suit".

Do you think you could replicate this "obvious fake-foot" movement?...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hey Lu and Sweaty,

I see you two are still running rings around the usual buffoons and braggarts here. Personally I don't know why you bother. People here who are obsessing over something they are sure doesn't exist are, well, obviously......not......right.....in......the....head.

That's like, er.........weird isn't it?

Yo Lyndon.....how goes it?!

Great post....good observations, as usual.


Check out this quote from Mad Hom:

Blah blah blah....:::YAWWWWN::...replicate the suit...blah blah blah....should be easy...yada yada.... ad nauseum.

Sweety this plea to "replicate the suit" is getting a bit tired don't you think??

Mad Hom doesn't like me requesting that somebody actually back-up their claims, and replicate the movements we see going on with Patty's so-called "suit".......but, like it or not, he's gonna be hearing a LOT more of it!


Logically.....if Patty's hide is an obvious suit, then it should be easy to replicate at least some part of it, if not the entire thing.

Quick rundown on the thought processes here:

"These buggers don't exist, but I'm gonna spend almost all of my waking hours talking about them because I've got nothing better to do with my life".

Bingo.


I hope you stay tuned, Lyndon....I have some more good stuff on the way!

 

[William Parcher]

I've had the pleasure of meeting Peter Byrne in person. He knew both men (Patterson and Gimlin) personally and frankly didn't think they were smart enough to pull off a hoax like that.

I don't understand the functionality of that sentiment or opinion. The film is widely regarded as a hoax because they weren't smart or capable enough to pull it off.

Many people think it looks like a costume, and the surrounding testimony is highly suspect. That should count as - "they didn't pull it off".