Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LTC8K6]

Thanks for the article. See how informative it is to post things in context and give the link?

It sure read like you were chastising me for leaving out irrelevant quotes, Lu.

Be that as it may, the only relevant item was Hill's opinion, which I quoted in it's entirety.

All of the quotes together still do not "authenticate" the P/G film anyway. Nor do they come anywhere near to backing up the claim that the film was authenticated.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Wow. Tell it like it is.

Approx how long is the PGF footage in LMS ?

 

[LTC8K6]

I can't even get an answer as to whether a couple of stills are in the video on LMS...

You know, I would probably buy a DVD copy of the P/G film itself. Especially if I were sure it was the whole film.

Of course I think we'd all love to see everything that Patterson shot on those 2 rolls. Well, maybe Lu wouldn't.

I do not think I want to purchase all of the other claptrap that I am certain the LMS DVD is full of.

The thought of paying for BFRO "research" on video makes me nauseous.

 

[Thurkon]

The image is on BFF and was on one of the first threads I read when I joined. How did it get to Rense.com?

You'd better read the rest of nightwing's thread. He's showing proportions here. The pics aren't to scale. BH is 6'2".

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4721&hl=

Nightwing’s post is so unscientifically desperate it hurts my brain.

He says the torso lengths differ. First, he starts Bob H’s top measurement lower on the neck. Very scientific, nightwing. Second…of course the torso length is different at the bottom…because in the second picture Bob H isn’t wearing a giant fur diaper.

Morris has already stated that he consulted with Patterson on how to lengthen the arms through a prosthesis. Is that what we’re seeing?

Nah, must be an elusive, undiscovered, giant, hairy-breasted primate.

 

[Thurkon]

Really? Do give us some examples of this.

My initial comments about this were in response to misinformation from a BFRO article.

Let’s just take an example from the BFRO site:

“The Patterson footage has never been debunked as a hoax. No one has ever demonstrated how it was done. Neither the original "costume," nor a matching costume, has ever been presented by honest skeptics, nor by various imposters who claim to have worn the costume.”

This is deceptive, or outright false. Morris and Bob H presented a pretty convincing costume, despite what Footers want to tell themselves. Bob H did demonstrate how it was done, regardless of whether you want to believe him or not. To claim no one has attempted is patently false.

BFRO’s site is peppered with this kind of garbage. It profits them to distort the truth.

I know one of the BFRO's goals was to keep a couple of full time researchers in the field. If MM has found a way to do this by raising money from the expeditions, I don't see any harm in that, even if MM is one of the ones. Have we heard his side of things yet? And what do you know of the BFRO besides what RayG posted? You said you were new. How did you get so educated so fast?

This Bigfoot stuff ain’t rocket science, honey. You can become educated on the best “evidence” for Bigfoot in about 16 minutes.

Do a search on anything Bigfoot related and you get the exact same articles cut and pasted into 20 different websites…all with the same erroneous information like the “inhuman” gait of Patty, inhuman proportions, and the “fact” that no expert has as of yet pronounced Patty a hoax (they have).

 

[Correa Neto]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4135670.stm

I predict footers will use this as "evidence" that there can be an unknown-to-the-science huge primate lurking in Nort America. New primate species were found, after all.
I predict the counter-argument will be: So, biologists can find a mouse-sized lemur in Madasgascar but fail to find a 3-m high ape in North America.

Where can I get my U$1000000,00?

Oh, am I the only one to find "just a bit" weird that just those particular guys -with a particular objective- were the ones to obtain the best footage on bigfoot (that is still not a good footage)? Why all the other wildlife photographers that work or worked in North America, producing Ed knows how many kilometers of film, have not managed to get at least, say, 30 seconds of nice bigfoot footage? Maybe because (pareidolia apart) immaginary creatures do not show on film, unless someone is using an immaginary creature costume?

Lame footer arguments:
-"They were not looking for them...";
-"Its such a vast expanse of rugged terrain and so few specimens that...";
-"Wildlife photographer always keep focused (pun intended) in the small area within their telephoto lens, they would not see the bigfeet that may be walking behind them " (argument adapted from UFOlogists´ excuses on why astronomers don´t see UFOs);
-"Wildlife photographers don´t work at night, while bigfeet are nocturnal...";
-"Wildlife photographers don´t wander too much beyond roads...";
-"Bigfeet shapeshifed to bears"

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I can't even get an answer as to whether a couple of stills are in the video on LMS...

You know, I would probably buy a DVD copy of the P/G film itself. Especially if I were sure it was the whole film.

Of course I think we'd all love to see everything that Patterson shot on those 2 rolls. Well, maybe Lu wouldn't.

I do not think I want to purchase all of the other claptrap that I am certain the LMS DVD is full of.

The thought of paying for BFRO "research" on video makes me nauseous.

I wouldn't hesitate to plunk down $30 if I thought I would be getting something objective.

I would like to know the source of LMS's PGF footage.. How was it mastered.. What is the length of the footage.

Supposedly, the encounter that was filmed lasted about two minutes.. I have never seen more than a few seconds..

The missing footage alone, is reason to consider the PGF inadmissible as evidence for anything..


The Bigfoot creduloids see all this amazing detail, but the facial features remain a blob, as do the soles of the feet.



I have heard there is a part of the film where Patty is seen moving right to left.. Has anyone else this..


I have heard there is a clip where she is seen standing still , and then steps off, to begin her famous walk..

It seems obvious that the owner of the film could stand to gain a great deal by putting it in the right hands, whether it is a hoax or not.. The fact that they don't is suspicious in itself..


Oh, and did I mention there is nothing funny or unusual about the walk ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Lame footer arguments:
-"They were not looking for them...";
-"Its such a vast expanse of rugged terrain and so few specimens that...";
-"Wildlife photographer always keep focused (pun intended) in the small area within their telephoto lens, they would not see the bigfeet that may be walking behind them " (argument adapted from UFOlogists´ excuses on why astronomers don´t see UFOs);
-"Wildlife photographers don´t work at night, while bigfeet are nocturnal...";
-"Wildlife photographers don´t wander too much beyond roads...";
-"Bigfeet shapeshifed to bears"

Notice how they are not bothered by all the contradictions like:

They are skillfull at eluding would be trackers, but they have this strong smell that leaves no doubt of their presence..

 

[LTC8K6]

I would like to know the source of LMS's PGF footage.. How was it mastered.. What is the length of the footage.

Yes, indeed. Provenance is a fancy word for it, I think.

I have heard there is a part of the film where Patty is seen moving right to left.. Has anyone else this..


I have heard there is a clip where she is seen standing still , and then steps off, to begin her famous walk..

I have read these as well. The Argosy article seems to say that Patty is indeed standing still at the beginning of the P/G footage, which would be astonishing to me.

I have also read accounts of parts of the clips where Patty seems to scale differently, as if a zoom lens had been used or as if there are 2 different films of Patty at Bluff Creek.

Patty seems to have gotten well away in this shot, captured from the LMS DVD.

 

[William Parcher]

Lame footer arguments:
-"They were not looking for them...";
-"Its such a vast expanse of rugged terrain and so few specimens that...";
-"Wildlife photographer always keep focused (pun intended) in the small area within their telephoto lens, they would not see the bigfeet that may be walking behind them " (argument adapted from UFOlogists´ excuses on why astronomers don´t see UFOs);
-"Wildlife photographers don´t work at night, while bigfeet are nocturnal...";
-"Wildlife photographers don´t wander too much beyond roads...";
-"Bigfeet shapeshifed to bears"

You forgot a classic one. Wildlife photographers do see Bigfoot and possibly have photos. But they do not present this to anyone out of the fear of ridicule.

The believers count thousands of 'credible' Bigfoot sightings. They are also quick to mention that there must be many more that go unreported.

The whole thing is a game played by adults acting like children.

 

[bruto]

Yes, indeed. Provenance is a fancy word for it, I think.



I have read these as well. The Argosy article seems to say that Patty is indeed standing still at the beginning of the P/G footage, which would be astonishing to me.

I have also read accounts of parts of the clips where Patty seems to scale differently, as if a zoom lens had been used or as if there are 2 different films of Patty at Bluff Creek.

Patty seems to have gotten well away in this shot, captured from the LMS DVD.

I don't know what sort of camera was rented for the occasion, but if it was a reasonably good quality 16 mm. camera of the era, it would likely have had three prime lenses on a turret, rather than a zoom; if so a sudden change of focal length would not be in and of itself an anomaly. You'd expect them to change lenses from time to time as the subject changed distance, and these changes would have been abrupt.

What is still a problem for me is the fact that nobody, apparently, except for some distant "experts" has seen the other footage. For all her dancing around the subject, LAL cannot really explain why a party intending to shoot a bigfoot documentary woud have blown the majority of their film on scenery, leaving none at the end with which to document the tracks of the bigfoot they filmed, and why, if this is the case, the extra footage is now nowhere to be found. If the extra footage has been destroyed or lost or hidden, skeptics are entitled to be suspicious of its contents. The alternative explanation, which is that the people who made the film were careless and not very competent, is a kindness.

 

[Hitch]

You forgot a classic one. Wildlife photographers do see Bigfoot and possibly have photos. But they do not present this to anyone out of the fear of ridicule.

The believers count thousands of 'credible' Bigfoot sightings. They are also quick to mention that there must be many more that go unreported.

The whole thing is a game played by adults acting like children.

You're getting a bit too wrapped up in all this. Maybe you should take a breather, enjoy a good book:

 

[LTC8K6]

bruto, the NASI report gives quite a bit of detail about the camera and the film and the copy that was made.

This is not the full report, though.

It may answer some of diogenes questions.

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

 

[LTC8K6]

I have seen references to single lens K-100's and 3 lens K-100's.

As far as I know, Patterson had the single lens variety.

7' 3.5" and 2,000lbs.

Wow!

How come these days it's 6' 2" and 350lbs?

 

[Thurkon]

I have seen references to single lens K-100's and 3 lens K-100's.

As far as I know, Patterson had the single lens variety.

7' 3.5" and 2,000lbs.

Wow!

How come these days it's 6' 2" and 350lbs?

I always thought that was wacky.

She's 7" 3" and she weighs 2,000 pounds???

Tubby little squatch.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is one of my favorite examples of the silly crap over at BFRO..

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=586

Mating has been observed primarily between May and June, mostly between established pairs, and there is a suggestion of the birthing time lying between February and May. The duration of pregnancy (probably near 9 months) is partly related to the average weight of the species. Birth has been (very rarely) reported to occur in the squatting position, with other individuals nearby. The spacing of offspring is presumably governed by lowered fertility in consequence of demand feeding as well as infant mortality. On two occasions, females were observed carrying a dead infant.

Mating observed ? A birthing ? ( with a midwife or two standing by )


Does National Geographic know about this ? ' A Current Affair ' ?


Lu, is this really the circle you want to be associated with ?


I know ( hope ) you realize there is nothing to be debunked here; it is only to be held up to ridicule..


Have you looked into a study of critical thinking?


Have you looked at " SIX THINGS A NEW BIGFOOT RESEARCHER SHOULD THINK ABOUT "

over at BFF ? http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2947

It really has some good advice, except for a couple of points about the validity of what would be some real evidence...


I have heard that it's not nice to laugh at other people's beliefs, but it is also said " I'll stop laughing at what you believe, when you stop believing in funny stuff.. "

 

[Starrman]

predict footers will use this as "evidence" that there can be an unknown-to-the-science huge primate lurking in Nort America. New primate species were found, after all.

This actually kills the 'bigfoot exists 'argument for me. Yes they found a Lemur and look, they have already captured and photographed at least one, and quite cleary. Certainly this Lemur was not a mythical creature rumored for decades, having its own organizations out there on expeditions looking for it.

Certainly there aren't casts of the Lemur tracks in some now vindicated primatologist's office - where he is currently doing a little 'I told you so' dance.

If you read the article - these Lemurs are one of the most endangered species and are very little - yet some guy has one in his hand!

Yet we are to believe that we have no clear pictures and no specimen on a 500 pound ape-man that has been seen by thousands of eyewitnesses for decades? Or, if Patterson is genuine, one?

 

[Thurkon]

Here is one of my favorite examples of the silly crap over at BFRO..

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=586

Mating observed ? A birthing ? ( with a midwife or two standing by )

Catch this one?

Through several longitudinal studies and incidental observations of footprints of family groups, an approximate growth scale has been constructed (Fig. 13). Sasquatch infants are born small ("like a 4 lb. preemie"), but are very fleet-footed at just a few years of age. The infant stays with the mother until puberty at age 10 or so, measuring about 6’ in height by then. Offspring seem to be spaced about 5 years apart, as judged by the admittedly small sample of grouped footprints; thus, a smaller infant will have the company of an older sibling for some years. A young male and one barely maturing female, as evidenced by immature breasts, about 7’ and 6’ tall, respectively, were seen keeping solicitous company.

Where the heck are they getting this stuff??? I've never read any eyewitness reports this detailed. You'd have to be living Goodall-style with Bigfeet for years to have this kind of data.

And this:

A sasquatch can hypothetically be expected to have a mean life expectancy of about 35 years, a number derived from a relationship that exists in mammals between body mass and length of life.

Maybe I'm dense, but what relationship would that be? Does more mass equal longer life/shorter life? Is this true?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I guess they can hypothetically be expected to piss Guiness Stout.. Can't wait to catch one to see how this one plays out..

 

[LTC8K6]

I think i mentioned this way back there somewhere.

The BFRO apparently knows as much about bigfoot as the rest of the world knows about tigers, or elephants, or gorillas, or humans.

This despite the fact that they are nowhere near proving the thing exists, let alone proving anything else.

It's utter garbage pulled out of their butts.

Not only that, they are apparently going to keep repeating the garbage even if they get better data.

All dynamic biological aspects of the animal, particularly behavior, will continue to rely on eyewitness reports regardless of advances in anatomical knowledge.

Regardless of advances in anatomical knowledge????

What a bunch of brain dead idiots!

Was that too strong?