Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 2

[Skeptical Greg]

I was just reviewing this thread and found this on page one.. I seemed to have missed it first time around, but will comment now, since Crow has brought up the bristling hair more than once, and how unlikely a gimmick it would have been for Patterson to use.

Alright I wasn't going to feed into this maddness but I so enjoy helping the obsessed become more obsessed. Patty's forearm is bristling not unlike the gorilla photo. Patterson was getting close and it was puff up time.

First of all, Patterson wasn't getting closer at this point .

Second, Crow, can you find documentation of such gorilla behavior, when a gorilla is moving away from a perceived threat ?

I believe the example you have chosen is one of aggressive, territorial behavior ..
Not retreating, which is what the subject in the film is doing.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Now tube, don't con me!

Unlike Anton, Rick is qualified to identify bigfoot butt & nut prints.

RayG

Every time I hear about the Skookum Elk lay, it makes me cringe.

First of all- think about the size and weight it would take to make "testicle prints". Those things would have to be the size/weight of the rolling media in steel mill or mine conveyors and thats a lot of mass.

Then from the article ( paraphrased)

>>> Elk tracks in the cast but no bigfoot tracks, ...DNA comes back as ( you guessed it) ELK hair.

Then in the MUD surrounding the Skookum Elk lay, there were bear tracks, deer, coyote and ( you guessed it) ELK tracks but no BF tracks in the MUD.

Then how is the "investigative scale" tipped from elk to BF? ( I could just see Adrian Monk refusing to conduct a test such as this)

>>> repeatedly lying down in the mud to mimic what happened ( finally they got it)

( in reference to the above, I have a mental image of a man wallowing in the mud to try to convince a group but how did he sell them being testicle prints I wonder? How did the BF get there without leaving tracks? [ was he riding a bear?])

If anyone ever wonders why mainstream science laughs at and ignores BF "evidence" its because of things like this. ( and this is one of the best and most experienced?)

 

[Aepervius]

Yeah, its hard to search thru if you werent there from the beginning and have an idea of what to look for

We could call this thread the "second roll" in keeping with the hoax theme as the first one ran out of film. ( so to speak)

I have saved offline the whole thread, with keywords, post date and poster. I also made a program to quickly search it and get results. But do to copyright law I can't give it to anybody without having copyright authorisation from everybody having posted on that thread. Not gonna happen. The best I could probably do, is encrypt the data, and instead of showing a copy of the original post, call a browser to show the post (show the post from the real thread on this forum)...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re Longtabber's comments on Skookum:


And yet it sat out there for years as a great piece of evidence, until a non-proponent, with some real-world expertise, bothered to point out what it really was..
This was a great thread over at BFF..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15569

The wagons were circled - and we got this ..

The Official Skookum Cast Analysis Information Thread, Newly released information and analysis.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15671
So when Anton prepares a professional analysis, we quickly get an official version from the Bigfoot camp, with the new super-secret stuff.
I find it interesting that the only credentialed person, Meldrum, who could have lent support to the Bigfoot side, stayed far away ...



That was fun ...

 

[Crowlogic]

I was just reviewing this thread and found this on page one.. I seemed to have missed it first time around, but will comment now, since Crow has brought up the bristling hair more than once, and how unlikely a gimmick it would have been for Patterson to use.



First of all, Patterson wasn't getting closer at this point .

Second, Crow, can you find documentation of such gorilla behavior, when a gorilla is moving away from a perceived threat ?

I believe the example you have chosen is one of aggressive, territorial behavior ..
Not retreating, which is what the subject in the film is doing.

Yes it would have been an unlikely gimmick for Patterson to use. Its what makes what is in my opinion potential bristling interesting. Also note that one of the frames is during the turn. Now apparantly Patterson or Gimlin, perhaps both caught enough of the subject's attention to warrant the subject's attention. At that point it does not seem as if it was retreat as usual. Furthermore it is unreasonable to assume that the subject was in a perfectly normal relaxed modality. It had been after all surprised by two humans on horseback from whatever it had been doing before the intrusion. 5 will get you 10 that its heart rate was higher than usual.

 

[Hitch]

Yes it would have been an unlikely gimmick for Patterson to use. Its what makes what is in my opinion potential bristling interesting. Also note that one of the frames is during the turn. Now apparantly Patterson or Gimlin, perhaps both caught enough of the subject's attention to warrant the subject's attention. At that point it does not seem as if it was retreat as usual. Furthermore it is unreasonable to assume that the subject was in a perfectly normal relaxed modality. It had been after all surprised by two humans on horseback from whatever it had been doing before the intrusion. 5 will get you 10 that its heart rate was higher than usual.

I hope no one takes you up on that sucker bet. Just the exertion of walking around in the woods in that costume would have gotten the subject's heart pumping harder than normal.

 

[William Parcher]

Crow, you have provided no visual evidence that your claim of Patty piloerection is accurate in the first place. You are now moving beyond that to theorize why it happened.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Crow, read my post again, and address my point. You seem to have a different definition of retreat than the rest of us.

You'll have to talk to Bill about taking Patty's pulse. Perhaps his fold analysis will reveal something ..

 

[William Parcher]

Aggressive retreat. Like walking away and flipping the bird at the same time.

 

[GT/CS]

Tube - I agree that just sending people to the 411 thread is a bit flippant - I agree that it wood make a good project to filter out some of the fluff .. but like you - I just don't know when I would find the time..

It never ceases to amaze me what passed for reliable evidence till people like you and wolftrax, did some experimentation .. You are a true pioneer who blew a big hole in footery ..

It's funny how we never seem to hear much about prints anymore, except for the continual rehashing of the PGF prints.

It still beats me why anyone gives those clown feet prints a second look.

Any word on what Chillcut is doing these days ? I didn't see him on the Yakima round-up list .. Did I overlook him ..

It may be useful to make a sticky of Kit's list of all the reasons the PGF is a hoax, or somehow move the list to the 1st post of the thread, or something similar.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3990675#post3990675

 

[kitakaze]

This may have been your first use of 411 PGF. It was about 9 hours after the PGF thread was locked. You da man!

Yes, I da man. It's a little thing, but it's my little thing. It holds the seething jealousy over Parcherfoot at bay.

That 411 thing, working in music I have a habit of making musical references all the time. My MABRC thread, for example. I called it "Mid America Bigfoot Research Center - The Wild Bunch." Most people would think that was for the '69 western. I actually named it for the 80's sound system DJ crew from Bristol (3 of the members became Massive Attack), The Wild Bunch.

I just like eclectic pop culture. Like these:

I would say we should have a William Parcher appreciation thread but some out-patient already started one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83557

BTW, we haven't had any TLA nomination worthy WP deep thoughts posts in a while. We're way underrepresented in the TLA's so why not play for the team sometime?

 

[kitakaze]

It may be useful to make a sticky of Kit's list of all the reasons the PGF is a hoax, or somehow move the list to the 1st post of the thread, or something similar.

I was just think today about the issue raised about a comprehensive and easily navigable JREF PGF reference. Obviously the 411 is a big fat girl that's hard to get a around. Obviously no one has the time to undertake the whole thing by themselves but I was thinking that if we started by imagining the sections it would be broken down into. A chapter listing of sorts. Aepervius could assist in retrieving information from the thread.

I'm going to fire off just a couple section headings that spring to mind. Anyone who likes please add or revise to the list.

P&G story discrepancies:

P vs G discrepancies

Old versus new story disc.

Patterson's horse reaction disc.

Casting disc.

My list would be like a primer or intro.

 

[Drewbot]

Would there be a discussion regarding those Torpedolike Things Which Protrude From the Belly?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Re Longtabber's comments on Skookum:


And yet it sat out there for years as a great piece of evidence, until a non-proponent, with some real-world expertise, bothered to point out what it really was..
This was a great thread over at BFF..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15569

The wagons were circled - and we got this ..

The Official Skookum Cast Analysis Information Thread, Newly released information and analysis.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15671
So when Anton prepares a professional analysis, we quickly get an official version from the Bigfoot camp, with the new super-secret stuff.
I find it interesting that the only credentialed person, Meldrum, who could have lent support to the Bigfoot side, stayed far away ...

That was fun ...

Like everything else, another classic example of how NOT to conduct good and proper research/investigation ( those were 2 of the first threads i read over there) I applaud DY for his effort and agree completely with his findings.

It always amazes me this idiotic non sequitor denialist oriented counter argument from the woo crew. I've had a number ask me ( and others) on how to do it 'right" so lets try that using the SC as an example.

1) isolate the area, take high rez pictures from all angles (even a ladder from overhead) you need these to document whats there in situ, where it was and how it looked.

2) gather all evidence ( removable) properly and tag/bag it for analysis offsite

3) recon the area,isolate things such as various tracks, tag them ( with a reference number) and take appropriate measurements

4) go to ground zero and do the same ( 1-3)

5) now you have all the basics down, prep and pour your area BUT make sure you cast other local prints for physical comparison to the cast. ( we like to match tire prints to actual tires and bullets to actual guns) Its no more complicated that picking up shell casings and elk tracks wouldnt take much casting agent.

6) make SURE your team of analysts have real relevant skill/experience in the area they are expected to review. ( note, being a "bigfoot researcher" doesnt qualify) So, in this case such a team should have: a casting/molding expert, primate expert, subject experts ( for elk, deer, bear and whatever else was suspected), a soil expert, a biologist with area specific knowledge and the appropriate labs for whatever is being sent off.

7) let the experts get whatever articles/standards etc for what case they intend to build- get the forensics from whatever was examined and build the case.

Pretty simple and here are some DONTS

1) dont play secrets with your evidence

2) dont play word games

3) dont violate transparency and in the open

4) dont let non experts ( see 6 above) have any say in anything

5) dont let any camp with an agenda ( pro or con) have a majority

6) dont let your report exceed what your data says

7) dont be 'exclusive" in your evidence and allow all to examine it

Nothing to it

 

[Skeptical Greg]

One of the points ( and one you alluded to ) I could never get Noll to come clean on, was whether or not the baited area was photographed before the impression was discovered.
I was assured it was, but no photographs were forthcoming.
When I asked, Noll would get agitated, and say something to the effect that I wasn't entitled to, for whatever reason.

For all we know, the impression was there from the begining ..

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Its really quite easy

What you would be doing is an analysis of probability as to what made the elk lay potential target. The woo crew will call blast from the highest mountain that you cant be 100% certain so theres a chance it "could" be BF but that claim has the same level of credence saying it "could" be where an alien was killed by a Predator too.

What each expert would normally do is measure/examine said imprints to build a pro/con case for and against his animal and then all cases are compared against themselves and the rest of the evidence.

Then whichever has the most plusses is the accepted highest probability- rank the rest.

Lets look at the positives and see how that might turn out ( inconclusives carry a zero weight and are discarded)

elk tracks were at the scene
elk hair was found in the print
elk are verified in the area
elk have highly similar appearance to the impressions and the dimensions match known species measurements
elk are known to lay

so you dont have an answer to every single solitary question ( you seldom ever do in anything) but you now have a scientific probability case built on the preponderance of positive evidence that is correctly verified and points to a reasonable conclusion.

Thats how it works in REAL science.

Trying to proclaim unverified "squiggilies" ( that could have a hundred different explanations) are BF dermals ( based on a visual guess on other questionable evidence regarding an animal that may or may not exist in the first place) and to make up a paradolic outline of a primate that is based in imagination that happens to fit the outline isnt legitimate science, its ( you guessed it) BIGFOOT science. ( where all evidence be it + or - or 0 value rules BF in by default or rules every known thing out as needed to fit the case)

This BIGFOOT science is known for the above as we see the greats use it to discern a BF foot print at a cabin in Canada too. Its also in the canon of BIGFOOT science to rationalize that casting artifacts only occur in controlled experiments by people who can imitate a compliant gait ( with and without a balancing pole) but never occur in random soil castings of holes in the ground purported to be BF prints examined by people who have no true knowledge of the creature they are convinced the print came from which "proves' they are dermals.

Its also a tenet of BIGFOOT science that accounts are more likely true based on an unqualified opinion of an unqualified investigator after an unqualified investigation than any other possible ( and more logical) explanation. This type of evidence is considered so overwhelming that many PhD's in BIGFOOT science will accept them as absolute truth based on their opinon of the unqualified opinion and proclaim to the world that these are accepted habits of a BF at seminars et al and only get upset when Vanity Fair journalists point out how odd it is.

In conclusion, based on the factual evidence reviewed for this post, it is the opinion of this scientist that "skeptics" and the scientific community at large arent the biggest problem in BF dom trying to gain legitimacy and official acknowledgement- its this thing called ( you guessed it) BIGFOOT science and those who practice it.

Thats what the data shows.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

One of the points ( and one you alluded to ) I could never get Noll to come clean on, was whether or not the baited area was photographed before the impression was discovered.
I was assured it was, but no photographs were forthcoming.
When I asked, Noll would get agitated, and say something to the effect that I wasn't entitled to, for whatever reason.

For all we know, the impression was there from the begining ..

It should not only have been photographed but should have been gridded and had key aiming/measuring points with known values selected.

I was under the impression ( probably wrong and no pun intended) that they didnt set out to do anything like getting a body cast but just to see if they could get prints or DNA from the fruit.

It seems to me if thats correct, it would have been prudent to have a "duckblind" ( hidden observation point) some distance where either periodic or continuous monitoring of the target area could be conducted or maybe a trailcam.

More of that high quality BIGFOOT science at work again and its amazing fruits.

 

[rockinkt]

More of that high quality BIGFOOT science at work again and its amazing fruits.

Any mistakes made were the result of confusion arising from the effects of the pheromone chips on the fruits participants.

 

[makaya325]

Long, were are the published elk dna tests regarding the cast? Werent there somethings that couldnt be attributed to an elk?

 

[Crowlogic]

The Skookum cast represents the single most innane contrivance of evidence (of any sort for any reason) that I've ever seen. I laughed out loud when they showed the drawing of the Sasquatch in the proported position. One has to ask the question of why on this earth would anything or anyone that walks around on two legs resort to that posture to get a piece of fruit laying on the ground? Throw that thing away, make a boat anchor out of it already.